John P. Maguire & Co. v. David Rosenthal Associates, Inc. (In Re Lewis Carpet Mills, Inc.)

N.D. Georgia

John P. Maguire & Co. v. David Rosenthal Associates, Inc. (In Re Lewis Carpet Mills, Inc.)

15 B.R. 172, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2629

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia

DecidedNovember 5, 1981

Docket19-20182

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 15 B.R. 172 (John P. Maguire & Co. v. David Rosenthal Associates, Inc. (In Re Lewis Carpet Mills, Inc.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John P. Maguire & Co. v. David Rosenthal Associates, Inc. (In Re Lewis Carpet Mills, Inc.), 15 B.R. 172, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2629 (Ga. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

HUGH ROBINSON, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

This is before us on Defendant David Rosenthal Associates, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.

John P. Maguire & Co., Inc. (“Maguire”) entered into a factoring agreement with Lewis Carpet Mills, Inc., (“Lewis”) by which it bought all of Lewis’ accounts receivable and took a security interest in all future accounts receivable as well as in the proceeds thereof, the merchandise represented thereby, and various other rights (as more fully set out in the factoring agreement attached as exhibit “A” to Plaintiff John P. Maguire Co., Inc.’s complaint). Maguire has the right to charge back uncollected receivables against Lewis’ account with them.

Maguire brought the present action in order to collect accounts receivable from Rosenthal. Rosenthal moves to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and that the proper party in interest did not bring the action.

*173 DISCUSSION

Maguire’s complaint alleged that Rosen-thal did business in Georgia. It is unnecessary to address the other possible bases of jurisdiction presented by Maguire, as this allegation will be considered true for purposes of this Motion to Dismiss. Therefore we cannot grant Rosenthal’s motion on this ground.

We further find that Maguire’s action will possibly affect the amount of its unsecured claim. To the extent Maguire may collect from Rosenthal, Maguire’s unsecured claim will be reduced. Conversely, if Ma-guire is unsuccessful, it can charge back the receivables in question .to Lewis’ account with Maguire, and thereby increase its claim. We find this action to be related to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Based on the record presently before the Court, we determine that Maguire is the proper party to bring this action, and therefore we cannot grant Rosenthal’s motion on this ground. For the foregoing reasons, it is

ORDERED that Rosenthal’s Motion to Dismiss be and hereby is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

HUGH ROBINSON, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

This is before us on Defendant David Rosenthal Associates, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.

John P. Maguire & Co., Inc. (“Maguire”) entered into a factoring agreement with Lewis Carpet Mills, Inc., (“Lewis”) by which it bought all of Lewis’ accounts receivable and took a security interest in all future accounts receivable as well as in the proceeds thereof, the merchandise represented thereby, and various other rights (as more fully set out in the factoring agreement attached as exhibit “A” to Plaintiff John P. Maguire Co., Inc.’s complaint). Maguire has the right to charge back uncollected receivables against Lewis’ account with them.

Maguire brought the present action in order to collect accounts receivable from Rosenthal. Rosenthal moves to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and that the proper party in interest did not bring the action.

*173 DISCUSSION

Maguire’s complaint alleged that Rosen-thal did business in Georgia. It is unnecessary to address the other possible bases of jurisdiction presented by Maguire, as this allegation will be considered true for purposes of this Motion to Dismiss. Therefore we cannot grant Rosenthal’s motion on this ground.

We further find that Maguire’s action will possibly affect the amount of its unsecured claim. To the extent Maguire may collect from Rosenthal, Maguire’s unsecured claim will be reduced. Conversely, if Ma-guire is unsuccessful, it can charge back the receivables in question .to Lewis’ account with Maguire, and thereby increase its claim. We find this action to be related to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Based on the record presently before the Court, we determine that Maguire is the proper party to bring this action, and therefore we cannot grant Rosenthal’s motion on this ground. For the foregoing reasons, it is

ORDERED that Rosenthal’s Motion to Dismiss be and hereby is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 B.R. 172, 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-p-maguire-co-v-david-rosenthal-associates-inc-in-re-lewis-ganb-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack